the nature of our civic activism and government service, so the president is very proud to have the two delegations, both the one to the opening ceremonies and the one to the closing ceremonies to represent the united states government in sochi. >> cinders past the federal --ernment agreement today senators passed the federal government agreement today. chamber also voted to advance the 2014 defense authorization no. .- authorization bill a final vote is expected this week. he would also like to debate and confirm some other judicial nominations before the senate gavels out for the holiday.

can follow this event live on c-span 2. a discussion on the federal judges ruling that said the nsa collection on phone records violates the constitution. this is 45 minutes. back with james andrew lewis of the center for strategic and international studies. here to talk about the judge's decision on monday, a district court judge questioning the legality of nsa's phone data records. what did he say? guest: he said it was a tremendous intrusion into privacy. it was unconstitutional that the collection of the metadata, greatbills, by nsa, was a risk to the fourth amendment and lot legal -- and not legal. host: what program by the nsa

was he referring to? guest: they have a program -- essentially the phone bill of american citizens. call, howt who you long the call lasted, where the call might have been. possiblehem identify targets for counterterrorism or counterespionage. he objected to the fact that nsa, a foreign intelligence body, is collecting intelligence on american citizens. host: how? guest: it is your phone bill. you get a phone bill, nsa gets lots of copies of phone bills. do they look at every bill? no. but if they find a number -- one of the most successful techniques has been to capture a cell phone in afghanistan or someplace and look at the numbers. who has this guy been calling.

if you find numbers in the u.s., this database let's nsa go back and look. the other thing they can do, they can find patterns. this is an old technique going back to the 19th century. they used to do it with letters. look for who is talking to who. host: this is the opinion section of "usa today," nsa phone records sweep up grows harder to defend. propose restraint and transparency but recommended metadata collection continue. the nsa has yet to prove that it is necessary or effective. it must do both to justify such a massive interest in i -- intrusion. guest: i do think the administration needs to do a better job.

be mored to transparent. they would have helped if they had told people they were doing this from the start. people would have been more comfortable. the problem i have with that of israel -- the problem i have uses the editorial, it word convenience. the government is doing this to protect people. host: what evidence is that? guest: there have been some instances where the ability to put together information and use that to identify potential attack has been able to stop things and that the u.s. these aret "24," teams of people. about one dozen people from different agencies, nsa, cia, fbi, a few others. they put the evidence together. one of the pieces of evidence is collected from these phone systems. host: do the american people know about the successes? guest: know, that would be

something you could be critical of. a problem with nsa, they are in intelligence agency. until a few years ago, you could not say their name in public. there is a culture of secrecy. they do not like to tell you what they are doing. i asked a former director of nsa, why don't you just tell people? you could get congress to approve anything that would make america safer. he said we don't want to let our opponents know what we're up to. it is a lonely for that. him coming clean is the way to go. host: have you talked to general keith alexander who heads up the nsa? what does he say? guest: he thinks it is crucial for defending the u.s. he thinks if we had had this program before 9/11, 9/11 would not have happened. i think he is right. host: what gives him that confidence? guest: one of the problems we had before 9/11 was the

difficulty of putting all the pieces together. there was evidence, cia, nsa, fbi had some. if we had looked at the whole picture, you would have seen the attacks coming. we were unable to track people down. we had a vague idea folks were in the u.s. there is not any other way to track people other than communications records. it has to be done under careful review and legal control. we do not really have an option for counterterrorism. host: the judge on monday decides data collection program violates privacy rights. what happens next? guest: pretty much nothing in terms of collection. recognized that the risk to national security was so great it would be to dangerous to stop the program. he said the government can't appeal this decision, whic -- he said the government can appeal this decision. until that is completed, this will stay in place.

host: top democrats reject court ruling. pushing back tuesday against a judge's decision, asking for higher courts to get involved. what sort of legal certainty are they looking for? guest: this is a debate we should have had a long time ago. we should have let people weigh in on the trade-off between getting privacy and gaining security -- giving up privacy and getting security. i would prefer we did not have the debate in a court. it would be better to do it on the hill. you will see arguments over the pros and cons. that didn't congress have debate after september 11 attacks when it passed and continue to reauthorize the patriot act? with: one of the problems this whole case is that the constitution does not forbid the collection of information.

it forbids unreasonable searches. the people who decide whether or not the search is reasonable are the president and the congress. this search is ok. under our laws, nsa is doing the right thing. people may not like it. host: what about the fisa court? guest: fisa court has gotten a bad rap. ys, this is not a rubber stamp. more transparency would help. people say cases are rarely turned down by the fisa court. you have gone through so many lawyers by the time you get to fisa. your own department lawyers, the justice lawyers, they will send the case back if it is not strong enough. they will ask for more information and insight. host: have you ever worked with the fisa courts? guest: indirectly, yes. host: can you explain? guest: i am in another country

and i see an american and a funny place. a place where there are not a lot of people, a battlefield. you say i wonder what the american is up to -- gunrunning or drugs. you take a picture of him and you come back and say, hey, can somebody find out about this guy for me? that triggers 11 million protections. you have to go through multiple lawyers who say do you have reasonable grounds? you say, i just had a bad feeling. a that feeling does not cut it. you need a good strong case to go to pfizer. -- goio to fisa. talking to john andrew lewis of csis, formerly a foreign service officer. talking about the judge's decision monday saying that the phone record data collection over by the nsa violates party

rights. getting your thoughts, our first phone call. ependentcisco, ind caller. caller: my name is sadat. in 2009, my phone was tapped. i was going through a family dispute. they bring this information to court. when i discovered my phone was tapped, they try to remove this evidence from my files. nine --ame time, the they denied me the right to have an attorney or a speedy trial. i was not present in court. you do not want the -- they denied m -- they do not want the jury to know the story.

they said bring him back to san francisco county jail. they bring me back to san francisco county jail and injected my food with poison. i filed a federal lawsuit. the state of california claimed immunity under the 11th amendment under the constitution. they say that california, with their sovereignty to the constitution -- what law gives those gentlemen immunity after they violate our constitutional right and put us in custody for no reason? this is a clear corruption. this type of corruption will leave the whole country to civil war. say, if you think my first and last name, sadat mousa, watch the video on you to. host: we will leave it there.

guest: one of the things people all the law is that enforcement agencies in the u.s. have the ability to go to a judge and ask for permission to wiretap. you can buy your own personal device to do it, although it is illegal under the safe streets act of 1968. wiretapping is not just nsa. police, whichcal it sounds like it was in your case or it if they follow the law, they could argue they have done everything right. wiretapping has been a cornerstone of law enforcement since the invention of the telephone -- telephone. host: if they were doing their

job as designed, why couldn't they stop the boston murders? a coordination problem. us had been more positives in september 11. interagency cooperation has gotten better, but there is still some gaps and that was one of them. host: what you make of the headlines of these tech company ceos meeting with the president yesterday and pressing him on spying, saying the public does not trust us, and demanding they have more control over the backbone? people are trying to manipulate the press and public opinion by releasing things that damage the u.s. government and

damage u.s. companies. there are people trying to take commercial advantage of this and companies are hurting. this is something the president needs to pay attention to. you need to rebuild trust. the companies were not participants in some nsa effort. they were not helping out in the way you might think from the press, but it is being spun to make them look bad, but the u.s. needs to build trust in those companies, saying they were not willing participants. of the over the backbone internet is probably wrong because it is controlled by the private sector. if the companies want the u.s. to say we are going to stop spying, that is not going to happen. everybody collects intelligence. welcome to the world.

host: gary. hanover, maryland, the public and caller. guest: i want to put forward the constitutionhe protects search and seizure. not just search. an individual or a group of individuals is expressly called out with regional -- reasonable suspicion -- the judge says this is valid. to collect someone -- everyone's metadata case at some point i will need this, i think it is grounds for concern. in this case, i think the judge was right. guest: i agree that that is the thing we have to talk about. costhave a threshold --sonable, particularly

articulated suspicion. collect tens of thousands of records, but they will only look at a few thousand. that is a good question. should they be doing this? i can make a public safety case, and others could make a privacy case. host: from twitter, many do not like the patriot act, it needs to be amended, but until the efforts are constitutional, there are efforts by the original authors of the patriot including patrick leahy from vermont. what you think their bill would do to this judges decision? >> -- guest: the first thing i would say is the nsa program is legal and constitutional. there is a challenge in court. i am willing to take a bet at the end of the day the program will stand. frustratedtration is

because they fear they did everything right, with congressmen and everybody saying yes, this was ok. you can see why they are annoyed. that said, the patriot act, the homeland security act, the -- terrorismd prevention act, we passed a number of bills in the heat of the moment after 9/11 that deserve a second look. parts of the patriot act, they were around for a long time. i first saw some of the drafts in the 1990's. you have to keep the ability to keep up with technology because the technology changes and you do not change laws, you suffer in enforcement. host: is that what happened with 9/11, we fell behind on technology? guest: it is not what happened with 9/11, but it was an impetus

to bring our technology up to date. the solutions that has been developed since 9/11 includes the metadata collection. we built a car that keeps us safe. it is time to have a debate. maybe he needs to be fixed, but let's not pretend there is no risk if we just get better that. -- get rid of it. says james, you claim it we would have been safer, how can you be sure? guest: i still have a security clearance. it is irritating that the administration does not make case strong defense. there will be cases where they have stopped something in the relationship might not seem straightforward, but if you look at all of the pieces, this was part of it. does that mean it is

irreplaceable? no, but we have to think about these programs. host: did edward snowden do damage, and if so, how much? guest: he has done a lot of damage. so far, the damage to the ability to collect is relatively small. of otherhe ability countries to build technologies that will keep nsa from collecting on them -- and i must say, it is not just nsa -- it is any number of european countries, middle eastern countries -- a lot of people do this. now that everyone knows about this, the damage has been more political to the standing of the u.s., and there has been some commercial damage. host: how much more damage could edward snowden do, how many more documents does he have?

guest: apparently has millions more. i am getting bored with him. collects on nsa everybody all the time. got it. i wonder if the trajectory was not be like wikileaks where you have a lot of attention, and then tapers off. that is not to say we should not have a debate. we need to have a debate over the legality of these things. makingdward snowden headlines as he wrote an open letter to brazil's government seeking asylum. in "the washington post," he says the spy culture is tweeted fromd this reuters, brazil will not grant asylum. mildred. morning.ood i want to say thank you to your

guest. the american people have to start thinking. if the government was collecting everybody's data, what are you seeing as so critical? we have to look at the composition of the american public right now. we have so many foreigners that are now american, and they naturally talk to their relatives overseas and all. we do not know who is good, who is bad, who has had a change of heart since they came over to america. we are worried about the public data -- you know, the government collecting for public safety. i would rather be safe than bombed. look at the boston situation and what happened there. i will say that we should be concerned about the privacy issues of private businesses

that are collecting data on you, and selling it out. no kind ofhave privacy, if you think about it, but we, as americans, are not thinking with our heads. saying that is so critical that you do not want anyone else to hear? are you building a bomb? then i want the government to tap your phone. host: mr. lewis? guest: those are great points. i happen to agree with everything he said. i started using the internet about 20 years ago, and when i think about how much privacy i had then, it has been a downward slope. have much less than we had in the past. maybe that needs to change. i think that is the question before the american people. privacy, have complete

but you will be giving up something on the security side, and that is the debate we need to have. i think the majority of americans are ok with this program because it is nonintrusive and it does protect them. csa, radical tweets -- the the nsa have hurt the u.s.'s credibility. another one, convince me that privacy of the u.s. is more important than the privacy of the people that provide its substance. blame edwardot snowden. he was probably a little naïve. brazilld have gone to first of all. beachesre much nicer

than in russia. one of the debates is should we other countries do. everyone knows china is just as active in spying. do you inflame things by letting it out that we are not the only ones? there is no question that there has been immense harm. the second question is the one we want to think about. there is not a human being sitting there reading your e- mail. that is silly. it goes through a series of computer programs that use specialized algorithms to look for patterns that indicate you might be of interest, and that takes one billion e-mails and boils it down to 10,000. if that is just your normal stuff, nobody is going to read it. if it looks like it is connected to terrorism, if there is a reasonable suspicion, somebody might look at it.

that is the debate we need to have. host: this is the headline in "the new york times." you said there is internal debate to tell the public what other countries are doing. the germany top the list? guest: i met with others and i said do you know what germany does, and they did not. countries engage in to indications monitoring. while the germans have strict control and allowing them to take their concerns seriously, one of the inside jokes is nobody has ever met a german official that turned down to indications surveilled -- communication surveillance from the u.s.. host: david. republican caller. caller: i would like to make a

comment and then ask a question. i do not care what other countries do. we have the fourth amendment. passed, patriot act was tolde were told they were on somebody in the united states, somebody overseas, and all of a sudden that could change to spying on everyone in america. if they had changed the law, i would have paid attention, and we would've had that debate. these answer that question. guest: first, the this kindon supports of law enforcement. you could make the case this is constitutional. the second one is more

difficult, and that is the issue we have to talk about. the patriot act has been interpreted as allowing this mass collection, and that is the administration's position, probably the position of the administration before them, and it is one that people do not agree with ted it is one of the fights you will see -- agree with. it is one of the fights you will see in court. host: gene in ohio on twitter -- the nsa do its business without big business contractors -- higher public workers, not contractors. i want big business out of my dog says why do we have nongovernment officials working in the nsa? guest: that is probably something that is regrettable. the current administration is

trying to reduce the number of contractors. a surge tothere was build capability, and the easiest way to do that was to hire outside firms. it is a revolving door in washington. you have people that do 20 years in the service, then go out and work for a contractor and they do their same job. they are all loyal, all professional, but they had a surge of hiring after 9/11 that brought in people like edward snowden and there's probably regret about that. host: why do you still have top security clearance? guest: i got it a long time ago, 1983. i still do a little work. it is a good question. i do not see information the way edward snowden did. position.a unique i can consult on things relating to network security, but i do not do it very often. i do it maybe once a quarter.

there are a lot of people like me still in washington, who still have the clearances that help out when asked. i am not on a contract -- i guess i am on a contract, but it does not pay until i do something. host: you can retain your servants even if you are not in government? -- your clearance even if you are not in government? many outside of the government have clearance. it is the wrong question. why is so much and for mission classified -- information classified? you have to be more revealing, and the immunity is having a hard time justifying that. maybe half of what we keep secret should not be kept secret. host: how does your security institutebenefit the

-- the center for strategic and international studies? guest: it does not. host: this is something you do outside of your fellowship. host: -- guest: absolutely. know,everly wants to collecting debt is not the same thing as spying on americans, you must change these words. guest: people do not make the distinction often enough. collecting and reading are different. one way to think about it is you might have one million programs, or 100,000 programs running on your computer, but you will only look at a few of them. nsa might collect millions of records, they will only look at a few. collection is not espionage in the way people think about it. most of the records are never looked at by anyone. host: gene.

hillsboro, new hampshire. independent caller. caller: i want to make two comments. clearance as top- secret is really only like a -- it isol diploma certainly not the end of the classifications that you have. i work in both the private and the intel community, and i know that you have to be vetted by the specific office doors that you are walking into, or you cannot get in. that is my experience. the second thing concerns human nature. i know in working with the intel community, and the private community, for that matter, if you and your boss disagree on

what you should do, and that includes doing things that are pfizer laws, such as laws or other laws, the boss is going to win, or else he is going to coerce you into changing your attitude about what you should deliver to him in the way of intelligence. that is essentially what i want to say. thank you. host: ok, jean. all right. right.that is exactly you can tell he knows what he is talking about because top-secret is a general category. that comesslash after that that lets you into different programs, and there might be another that lets you into specific activities. i do not have them. you are right. without the tickets, you will not be seeing things.

the problem with edward snowden is as a systems administrator, he had a lot of tickets, so he was able to see and collect a lot of them from -- material. this says it is a direct violation of the constitution. al. see: good morning. general keith alexander is that -- caller:. good morning. general keith alexander admitted that the number of terrorist locked foiled by the -- plots foiled by the nsa's huge database was only one or, perhaps two, far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration. that was my clarification. i have a question. had an invention that was worth billions of dollars that you were developing, would you it on any u.s.n

orhnology company's hardware software for fear that it almost certainly will be stolen? guest: first of all, on the number of attacks stopped is only do you want to stop. ones not one for correlations. stopping 9/11 would've been worthwhile. on the commercial side is the u.s. has says we do not do commercial espionage. the people that steal the blueprints, that will largely be the chinese. using american equipment will not be a problem. linking up to a foreign network, you face that risk. it is a real concern.

american technology is better than most the stuff you can get overseas and probably safer. able do not like to say that, but one of the things we have going on, the high and intelligence agencies, if they are determined, they will get in, but the thing to make yourself safest might be using the google or microsoft prop -- products. they been doing this for a long time. host: the president put together a task force, five people, to review this program. i want to show the viewers who sits on the task what do you make of this list, and what have you heard about what they are going to

recommend? two of them are friends of mine, so that makes it hard to be critical, doesn't it? it is a strong team. i have heard there has been internal conflict over what to say and how much to recommend. i have seen they are going to have 40 recommendations. what that tells you is some of them will be good, and some of them will not be as good. we will just have to wait and see. the one that has bothered me the most is the idea of putting a panel of lawyers on the fisa court, and maybe this is just the way it was characterized -- a panel of lawyers to represent the people -- i'm sorry, i thought the government represented people. adding more lawyers does not make it better. is also the recommendation that you take away cyber command from whoever heads nsa, and nsa be a

civilian. what you think of that? guest: it has been military since its founding, and there is no reason why that should not continue. the nsa makes an important role in supporting the military, but if it makes people uncomfortable, it is easily something you could do. splitting cyber command within nsa is probably something you need to knew at the end of the day, but the dilemma is cyber command still depends on nsa capabilities to carry out its mission, and until they build their own, organic capabilities, you can not just pull nsa out. they are on the path. one year from now, and it might you do it in a way that does not leave cyber command limping. host: ralph. democratic caller. fears aree of our exactly what happened with edward snowden -- a high school

graduate would get information and college graduates technical companies created. at same people that hired him were the same people that did background checks on truck drivers. he did a lot of damage with only a high school education. the nsa is keeping us safe, but i do not want them to violate the rights of american citizens. edward snowden is portrayed as a hero with the tea party republicans, but to me, he is a traitor. host: mr. lewis? guest: a couple of issues -- the clearance process, we are using a process that has been around for decades. maybe he needs to be updated. your credit card company probably does a better job of a background check on you and the process,clearance probably because of privacy

laws. we have to think about how to modernize that. edward snowden -- some people think is a hero, some people think he is a traitor. there is no doubt he violated the law. he is not a hero to me. he did violate the law. it is alleged that he violated the law, and if he goes to court, i have a good idea they would convict him. -- james andrew the centerfellow for for international justice. you are for the government in which agencies? guest: the commerce department and the state department with dick clark. host: that was one of your friends in the list. the other?

swire.peter this is a good panel. host: when you think they will make an announcement? guest: it has gone to the president. the issue is when you roll it out. we know if you do not like something, you roll it out christmas eve. we will see when it comes out. host: on september 11 news, it is reported that is in "the wall street journal does quote this morning. jay. ohio. independent caller. you feelingject to

that 1983 was a long time ago. [laughter] my real question is when we go to the grocery store, we use our discount cards, our bank cards, credit cards, at that point we have given a tremendous amount of information to a private impany, but on the surface, am asking the question, what are you doing with that information, and now we are beginning to find out more methodologies that they are using and how some companies are selling it. thebig question is, what u.s. government, i am not opposed to the collection of the data. it makes a lot of sense. i question or my concern is what is going to happen -- you have a whole warehouse of information sitting there, and i know computer programmers -- i used else can- "gee, what we do with this information?" it becomes a slippery slope, and

that is the concern, how will this information eventually be used maybe to the advantage of one, and to the disadvantage of others, so on and so forth. any comments on that? guest: that is a great point. , to give you an example, i used a credit card in another country, and to see that was me, they asked me what street did you live on when you are in graduate school in 1983? i barely remember that, how do you remember that? the issue is it is a trade. people might be willing to give up information in order to get something back. od where notions about privacy are changing. it affects the nsa debate, collection. when you look at companies that are doing what they call data mining, or big data, you can do

amazing things by pulling together all of these disparate pieces. what companies can do for commercial purposes is actually what the -- greater than what the government can do for security purposes. that is hard to believe, but nsa does not have the same kind of access that a good credit card company might have. host: "the washington times" has this headline -- a lawsuit about against the mass surveillance program. this is what they write. --'t the first time in court it isn't his first time in court. lewis, thank you for talking to our viewers.

if you want to follow our guest, you can do so on >> oklahoma senator tom coburn talks about federal spending and why he thinks it is too high. looks at taxd reform and why congress passing the budget agreement. the partnership for public service on a recent survey on how federal employees view their jobs and workplace. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences.

created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> as talks over iran continue, a former obama administration advisor talked about a possible agreement. the level of uranium enrichment that would be acceptable to the u.s. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> you laid out exactly the questions. questions, i know they are bringing up the ipad.

ambassador, let me begin. be a historyould of non-relations. no direct talks. even this interim agreement appears to be a hiccup. secretary has talked to the foreign minister. agreement?eal is this a breakthrough moment? inventived take imagination to believe that it is not a breakthrough in the context of 30 years of all must know content -- almost no .ontent -- con tact where does that door lead? is it leading somewhere? can we see this particular opening take us through to a stage where we recognize that

the agreements -- and i put the plural there because we are waiting to see about follow on arrangements -- that the agreements have produced something that we can see, observe, and understand that it has created a status different from where we started. breakthrough, absolutely, but is the whole question going to be ratified? i think we are focused on the we havend that is what to look at. i have great hopes that it will, but the problem about the future is that it is all prediction. the point here is that i think the opening of the door is that every responsible reason to make sure on both sides that we conduct ourselves and run the activities so that at the end of the day, the door is leading a

somewhere. from that particular point, we can pick up and do other things. -- even though both sides have given priority to the nuclear agenda. believeobably hard to that given the number of contact, a of not talked about other questions. -- they have not talked about other questions. do you agree with ambassador pickering that this is a breakthrough moment? i wonder if you could comment on the domestic pressures facing the foreign minister and president rouhani. i was struck by the contradictory reactions.

iranians wentthe back home and were greeted by protests. >> for the first time, we have had direct talks between two foreign ministers. for the first time, we had a phone conversation between two presidents. two presidents have nominated the foreign ministers. five, 6, 7 rounds of direct negotiations before the deal and the talks are continuing. -- this iser had

clear. , we havetic situation the same domestic situation that you have in the u.s. deal. are supporting the some politicians are opposing the deal. some politicians are silent. almost everything is the same at the same level. there is a big difference. inre is foreign intervention the u.s. decision. the israelis are interfering and -- in thedecision -- u.s. decision. -- this is the big

difference between our domestic situations. that this istom the beginning. this is a breakthrough, but this is the beginning. is left for a comprehensive package to be agreed. >> are you confident the interim agreement is going to be executed? andran already has agreed signed with the iaea the framework of cooperation. this is one of the most difficult parts of the interim agreement. is the number one issue.

iaea have hadhe many meetings. they have agreed on the facts and it is ready to go. accesss have given before the implementation of the interim agreement. iraniansiance -- the gave access to the iaea to some very sensitive nuclear facilities. both parties are serious. >> you are working on laying the groundwork for this agreement. it does seem to be exquisitely balanced.

you worked hard on getting the balance right. side isgree on how each under parallel pressure? do you think one side or the other may be facing greater domestic opposition? there is great symmetry, great balance. this was a major accomplishment. in a relatively short. of time. -- short period of time. it is only one step in what is going to be a long journey. the obstacles ahead are huge. the mistrust on both sides is tremendous. the issues they have to tackle, the interim agreement, the issues are small in comparison to the big issues of what has to be resolved in a final deal.

and then you have the domestic criticism. we have the u.s. congress, very skeptical, the american public is skeptical. it has been 34 years of estrangement. a lot of ill will, mistrust. the american public does not trust any deal with iran. i am confident that this interim deal, besides will comply with it. on the iranian side, there is skepticism. this could open the door, if , the is a final agreement

obstacles are huge. it can be achieved, it can open the door to cooperation in some other areas. but it will be hard. where there can be cooperation -- think of areas in the world where there can be cooperation. afghanistan, perhaps. in terms of the conditions for stopping the civil war in syria, there are differences. it is a very impressive initial step, but it is only an initial step. you have a situation, 50-50, according to the president. the clock is ticking. the congress has been clear that six months means six months. what would you do right now to

start to beat the clock? >> i did not think the clock is running. the first thing i would do is get the clock running. i would start yesterday in beginning to scope out the effort that has to be made, the strategy, the focus, the ideas that have to go into the comprehensive agreement. i would try to pick up , perhaps beginning in bilateral contacts, despite the fact that the bilateral contacts have tended to produce two negotiations.

it is not easy to go from a bilateral deal to a multilateral deal seamlessly. that fromn very clear the moment the u.s. asked for bilaterals and the moment in which iran accepted it, the key was in the locked ready to be turned to open the door. that is very important. on what basiss should we make an agreement with respect to continuing enrichment in iran, which is inevitable. should it be related to a program? you cannot just pull figures out of the air. that has to be tuned with how does that help prevent rapid breakout.

what to do about the future of the iraq reactor? should it be converted to low enrichment? should we find a way to produce the result? those are all very important questions. i am sure bob could give you 100 others. i think we need to work on the congress. d a catastrophe. despite the fact that it was explained in the basis of their uncertainties and mistrust of iran. >> recognizing the right to enrichment, the opponents of the agreement were saying it is impossible.

iraq would have to be closed. is there a creative way around that? >> of course there is. the creative way is to restrict enrichment to levels that are related to a peaceful nuclear program. iraq has nopect, use for low enriched uranium. [laughter] they will have to figure out what it is they want to do. let me also say, i think we are making progress with the congress. the congress has come to understand that -- how will they take enrichment knowledge out of the hands of iranian scientists?

you have conquered that particular technical problem and zero enrichment may give you some time, but in the end, it does not undo the notion we've already have been able to develop it as a scientific reality. me respond to your point about enrichment. what is it like inside of iran right now? is he under pressure as well? and how much time pressure is he under? president obama has decided to deliver sanctions, how much time will he get from those forces? >> with all respect, with the , i believeof uranium that americans do not need 10,000 nuclear bombs. but the iranians, whether they

have enrichment or not. time pressure, george, this is for they important future of iran and u.s. thetions to understand threats and sanctions that have brought iran to the negotiating table. i am talking about the future. if americans come to the conclusion because of sanctions and threats and pressures, they need iran to come to the negotiating table. that is an article of faith for most americans in congress. sanctions definitely harmed iran. no one can dispute this, even

domestically. but looked to the package or postal that we gave in 2005. they were members of a nuclear negotiation team. it was a time to did not refer to the united nations security council. multilateral sanctions before un and look at november 24 or 25. you would see that the elements are exactly the same. the major elements of the is exactly the same as the elements.

they proposed not to have reprocessing. they propose to enrich below five percent. they proposed to limited the stockpile. that would give the state big interest for leverage. result. at the what is the main objective of beforections jacko sanctions have 13,000, after sanctions, 13,000. iran was really -- reaching

below five percent. iranians have been harmed, but on the issue that they really increased the level and capacity of the nuclear order. americans -- i am sure you have been at tables where you have heard a narrative like that. what would you say? cracks come on, hussein. everybody knows why iran has made these concessions. the sanctions became very effective. and true they were resisted the program continued, but after the oil sanctions were put in place and revenues dropped,

inflation went up to 40%. the sanctions became hard to tolerate. before the june elections were in a state of denial. they thought we could weather the sanctions and get around them. >> what is the difference between the proposal in 2005? >> i don't want to go there. after the june election, a group of leaders came to power and looked at the situation and decided this is intolerable. going down the drain and we have to do something about this. a majority of the iranian public said, enough. we need to rejoin the world and need to get rid of these sanctions. there is no question in my mind that the sanctions are what brought iraq to the table now.

thinkg forward, i sanctions can be counterproductive. if subsections are good, it is a mistake to think that more would be better. incentiveplenty of and the easing is modest. tohow do you make that case mccain and schumer? the u.s. objective is to get the best possible deal that keeps iran away from a nuclear weapon and doesn't take us into war. the alternatives to me seemed to be very stark. issue here is, continuing to

keep sanctions on iran when they can be useful getting the nuclear weapon by taking a nuclear deal. it means you have created a double duty operation. them back on again and we have held the trigger very tightly in terms of the by taking offion what are the symptoms of sanctions as opposed to the sanctions themselves. but to get a cooperative agreement, we will have to go further. the alternative, in my view, it is kind of lunatic. holding out for a deal that doesn't accomplish a great deal more on the basis that it has to extrad for in all of that

coin to do it when it doesn't demonstrably change the situation is one of those risk- that logicalses people can come out in a very that the kind of deal we are moving toward is a good deal and a helpful deal. if we don't keep the pressure on, the entire section? has not been proven, in my view, to be effective. i don't think that is right. >> what does the president have to show to the supreme leader and others in the power structure of iran and the iranian people to be able to

complete a deal? >> of course, a better economic situation would be the most import and issue. has a relation with two issues. andis domestic management one is sanctions. i think they are in much better situations under domestic management. they are much more functional. and the process of sanction lifting also continues a lot. i sincerely believe the major issue makes it feel possible, a

change in u.s. position. you are the first in the state andrtment to recognize that restaurants should be somehow accepted. the reason these efforts faded is because the u.s. deadline was no enrichment. we cannot do anything. the red line was no nuclear bomb. these made the deal possible. if the u.s. was supposed to continue sanctions for another , it would never be able to get it. well because of

the interviewing the secretary the morning after the deal. they say the deal clearly includes the right to enrichment and he was adamantly denying it to my direct question. it might get you through an interim agreement, but how do you square that? as far as i understand, the u.s. has not officially publicly recognized rights of enrichment for any country. including germany, argentina, brazil, japan. but practically, has tolerated. when kerry or obama are talking about we're not going to recognize the rights of

enrichment, they have not recognized the rights of brazil,nt for japan, argentina, germany, but they this is what. they're going to do about iraq. >> it is clear that the present deal doesn't get zero there is inherent language that zero enrichment may not be forcibly on the table considering the follow-on deal. it it doesn't say that necessarily can't be considered. there is a kind of politics to this rather than legality. don't think anybody can believe that enrichment was ruled out, nor was it specifically provided for.

>> there is no recognition of the legal right. we don't believe iran is going to accept the deal without enrichment. there has not yet been accepted by the u.s.. agreementitional upon andmitations on stockpiles acceptance of monetary measures that would make the enrichment program acceptable in terms of the moving concerns of the potential misuse of the program for nuclear weapons. hussein'sccept gratitude for recognizing early,

at the moment, they have very different conceptions of what an acceptable enrichment row graham would be. they talked about a mutually defined enrichment program based on practical needs. are iran's practical needs for enrichment. research reactor supplied by the united states. it already has enough fuel for decades. the russians are supplying the enriched uranium fuel for it. they have plans for for small research reactors and that is fine.

iran can produce enriched so at theel for that. moment, the practical needs are relatively small. my guess is the u.s. and its artners are going to suggest very constrained and small it won'tt program. look at current practical needs, it will look at plants that i think are wildly unrealistic. the u.s. will not agree to to fuelnt program sized a very large fantasy program. >> po that israel is looking at

agreement. what about russia and china? what do you see the role they are playing? are they hostile to a real deal? i think they are in the same range for a deal. there might be some variations but i don't think it would be much more since they have been around. there are clear differences on the table here with russia and china. they have put forward ideas for it deal never two different from where we have come out.

i think that the chinese are happy to follow in the wake of the russians on this one. not to get out ahead, in front, or behind on the kind of question that has been very comfortable for them. we had the extraordinary and maybe excruciating time of french resistance. i think had its own peculiar dynamic that we are now over. we had deep concern in the gulf states of israel. ambassador in israel and the prime minister of israel through an absolutely magnificent set of foresight and criticized the deal that he did not know the terms and conditions of and it turned out not to be the deal that was the

deal. you an indication that it was at least some political imperative at work here. it was interesting to me that the week after the deal, the israeli approach shifted. it was come to the united states to try to find a comprehensive deal. and that produced, on the hill, a set of reactions of tightening sanctions. some left to find the parameters of the deal. that isn't the deal. the two sides can agree to additional. i think it would be hard sledding right now and that is why when you asked me the first question i said we really have

to put a maximum effort into getting a comprehensive deal or something very close to it. do you think the maximum effort is being made? >> yes, except for imposing new sanctions. otherwise, the effort has been really positive. but the u.s. has played and would play a very critical role. what type of deal the u.s. would look for a comprehensive package. netanyahu oratisfy a deal to satisfy nonproliferation. i believe he would never be satisfied because everybody

would ask about the peace process. he would be afraid to continue the iranian nuclear issue. u.s. is going to reach a comprehensive deal with iran to nonproliferation, we have three major arrangements. one is additional protocol, and another is code 3.1. maximumthe international community that they can expect from iran based on mpg.

gary told the public that the withwould go to negotiate iraq, 3000 or 4000 centrifuges. these limitations are all beyond. if you nonproliferation treaty is the base, you have to stick to npt. 3.1, there is nothing to be done internationally. but if you're going to put , this is another issue.

that you cannot find any type of limits. have one enrichment site or 10 enrichment sites. no one can impose on the members any limits. >> it is certainly not true. it has one magnificent qualifier. peaceful. aregs that are not peaceful not permitted even though we have had long disputes and arguments about this. the last screw turn on a bomb, it is peaceful until then. i don't accept that view. in the joint agreement, iran has agreed to put inspection of certain items,

otherfuges, and installations up for inspection that are not readily changeable to the additional safeguards. is an example for the whole world that you're doing it. i would like to see that improved. we have a particularly difficult problem. sensitive activities that can be converted and moved into a weapons area. it is up to the international community not to be static as the fundamental designer of move ahead but to and try to find ways to improve capacity. a suggestion was made by a number of us that we should internationalize these

beilities and there would openness in what the facility was doing. and i think, iran has come back with that suggestion quietly and in a number of areas. way, i would've started with the u.s. to take in the enrichment facilities and put them under international ownership. the others that are nuclear , it would be purely a civilian effort. but it would be no guarantee. >> he mentioned before that there were recently imposed sanctions and that this was a problem. they said the u.s. will not

impose new sanctions. is that theres may be particular enforcement and this was explained to the iranian side in great detail. entities, but there will be no new sanctions. it was explained and understood. i happen to know that at lunch side gave a heads up and advance notice that these designations were coming. as ae the world knew, courtesy, we let them know. it is recognized. even if these actions were consistent with the interim agreement, they were inappropriate and

unconstructive. everyone knew that they were not inconsistent. they were expected. history and given mistrust and the actions that we ,onsidered iran's file asians they have to do more than just satisfy minimum requirements. officials have said that our job is to resolve the concern of the international community. we are prepared to go to great need to do that. it will certainly, temporarily. what should our objectives be? constraining what is called breakout capability. and when a country decides to get nuclear weapons, it abandons

constraints and uses existing facilities very quickly to produce enough bomb grade andium for a single weapon. to do that quickly enough for the international community can intervene. but you have to lengthen that breakout timeline, the time it would take to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. in our view, it is possible to constrain the size of the program while at the same time meeting iran's legitimate needs for enriched uranium to fuel its nuclear energy program which, for the time being, is very modest. it is possible to square the

circle, but it will involve bridging a gap that is very wide. the problem with the interim agreement is that it attracts fire and criticism. it is natural for leaders to wanted to get a little bit. >> he said you can't have a deal that satisfies prime minister netanyahu. if that is true, can there be a deal? >> i agree that it should not be the standard. i don't know why he has taken a very maximalist send all enriched

uranium out of the country, shut down this reactor, i don't think that is achievable. and it is not necessary. have a good agreement without meeting those criteria. harm in going for it? the worst they can do is say no. there is worse than they're saying no. if we put a position on the table that the world considers elementwe lose a vital in negotiations, this very strong sanctions coalition. when i went around the world speaking to governments, the best argument i had is that we need your help strengthening the

sanctions in order to increase the chance of successful negotiations. only through pressure are we going to get a good deal. we are responsible for the impasse. >> that is how it unravels. >> they agree on no nuclear weapons in iran. as bob said before.

that hussein is ready to say that the iranians will agree. much of that time as we need and as much transparency so we know what we are losing that. as an arrangement out there on the table, do we want to give that away in hopes of getting something that is slightly better, but not worth the price of admission? us to a well lead military conflict. >> he is the expert. iranian hardliners have benefited from sanctions.

will they support a comprehensive agreement? >> no one has benefited from sanctions in iran. i have been at iranian administration at the time the nuclear crisis came up. i never had radicals. this is a very religious thing. iran has issued a

religious fatwa. imagine the two followers of the leader that would go against the factions. npt,e base is going to be for confidence measures, it would be acceptable because it is iranians that proposed from 2003 two 2005 confidence building measures like enrichment below five percent. these confidence building measures in order to remove it from national concern.

the reason i am really surprised impactt is the amount of is because he is challenging officially the u.s. president. it is shocking. and second, when you hear a congressman say that i trust more israel he is, can you imagine a u.s. congressman tells the foreign secretary i trust israelis more than you? this is really something that we cannot imagine. >> can you tell us more about

the secret u.s. iran nuclear agreement? >> tom was behind. the person that masterminded these. >> i can shed more light on it but inyone else here it am restricted in what i really can say. there have been reports of a bilateral channel going back before the election on that. and it is clear that president said ias personally would like to have bilateral u.s. iranian talks. we need to restore dialogue. the administration has been for that for quite some time.

at the un general assembly, you had a foreign ministers meeting they met for 30 minutes afterwards. all of that was very good. the bilateral dialogue continued after that. it has been revealed since then that there had been a lot of side discussions. and in that crucial second what happened, was the document that was handed, she called document, but it

was largely under rainy and and american document. resolved, butly ofwas largely the work bilateral discussions working very efficiently together. my own view is that the u.s. might have done a better job at consulting its partners, but we were honoring the request that we keep this confidential. it is very difficult to negotiate in public. even if we said this is strictly get out in thed newspaper and make things very andicult. we kept it quiet it caused some resentment. the public reaction was i think

a function of his feeling a bit left out. it was resolved within 24 hours and was a consensus that we moved forward with. a complicated factor going forward because i that iferyone knows there is going to be a deal, there has to be a meeting of the minds. those are the critical protagonists. i don't want to diminish the , but the u.s.ou and iran will be critical. even though they will be the central talks, i think they will have to be supplemented with bilateral discussions.

you are professionals of a hard grinding work. president richard nixon's historic visit was a pivotal moment in u.s. foreign policy. is president obama on the verge of something similar? is there any world where it would be more helpful to try something dramatic like that? >> we have yet to see what we -- beyond what we already have. disparaged. to be at not like be look the visit to china but the visit to china was prepared over the

course of a year. and to be able to get that thing moving for the reason it was just explained. both sides had a feeling that they could prosper if it took place outside of the glare of the lights and outside the influence of other players. other players were brought in at various times. but my feeling was it was a necessary risk to take. they were so significantly larger than the momentary hiccups that we had to go through despite the fact that they got a lot of publicity. i think the challenge is how bilateral context can be syncopated a little bit better.

the fact doesn't have to be hidden any more. reports as to exactly who said what. i think there will have to be some thought given to it. did exactlyat they the right things and managed it as best they could. >> would've more dramatic move like that be helpful? >> of course. that theyrecognize would have never reached a deal otherwise. and that progress with direct talks, again, it would fail.

limitr, we should not talks to nuclear. we need to enter a broader dialogue. u.s. is a big player in iran is a big player. iraq, thecrisis in u.s. is a big player. to it is really interesting remember that we are supporting the same government. and the u.s. allies are proposing this to the government. the major threat is terrorism spilling over from syria. they can play a big role

controlling extremes and terrorism. it was really great that the countries cooperated. this background can be used for current problems. i know the nuclear talks would be followed. we would need u.s. dialogue. not just on nuclear, but broader issues. it does not mean it can only be resolved -- we need to engage we need to engage russia and egypt.

the presence of iran and the u.s., none of these issues are off? of donaldrse one rumsfeld's rules, if a problem is too large to solve? i don't think that is right right now. there are those that believe this is not just nuclear. there are great hopes for that in the long run. there is an interesting symmetry in the short term. there are domestic political reasons on both sides. the name of the game is getting the sanctions lifted and getting

the economy back on track. that byt do complicating the problem and delaying a deal. there are still those the call the united states the great satan. there are still concerns among u.s. partners in the region. they think the u.s. is going to cut a deal that says, in

exchange for iran's nuclear concessions, the united states is going to give iran a free hand in the middle east. to happen, butng it is a concern. the iranian leadership wants to confine this to nuclear. if there is compliance and people are comfortable with it, it can open doors to do more things. starting off with areas of obvious common interest, broadening from there. >> i think that we have both committed to do the nuclear deals as rapidly as we can. sequence before we try to solidify other deals.

i think there is no question in doors, that in some core in some discussions, other issues come up. it is more important to have the iranians know what we think about these questions then to have them presume the worst in terms of how we go ahead. it is important to talk to the saudis about these questions. with respect to syria, it is a hard case. participation has to involve at least some knowledge of some commitment.

i think we are seeing potential to move serious ahead. >> with assad earlier this year, would there be an interim agreement in iraq? >> let me talk about the overture on syria. >> the only positive development

since the beginning of the syrian crisis. the syrian crisis, even the last two years, this is the only serious positive. cooperation due to between russia and the united states. therefore, there is already one big step for syria to take. to engage and push aside to give politicald to give up weapons. >> that is not the solution. that is the entry point to getting to the solution. no one, i think, at least not in a public way.

it does not establish the basis for trying to move ahead with an approach to resolving syria. they are reluctant to agree to .omething that is the only point i was making. they had a particular step that opened the door to these other questions. stopping this location that is taking place in the region. certainly jordan and lebanon.

they feel the effects, to say horror.of the i think it will take time. i would warmly welcome them into the steps if they agreed it was a common basis. >> there is another step already underway. there is multilateral how many examples do you want? >> another basis. we will need a cease-fire for that. >> no extremism and terrorism. iran would fall prey to both. if we agree that syria has no , if we agreetion

for a transitional period, if we agree to pave the ground to decide about the next president , you would have them indefinitely. >> we need them backing a cease- fire. we have to get chemical weapons out. that is a precondition. >> it will not be a cease-fire. as long as they are not ahead of syria. >> having a pre-commitment to get rid of it. only the truism.

it has to be clear that the transitional machine can evolve the current head. it makes sense to recognize that it seems to me a necessary -- >> you said that the negotiations have to be isolated. >> iran wanted separate. if you make concessions, we will cut you some slack in syria. i think there is a relationship in the sense that if this is , it is going to

facilitate cooperation on syria. they will be more supportive on engagement in syria. responding to some of your questions, a person says i think his position is based on survival of their country. do you think the position changes? >> i believe the public opinion for eight years. they never said israel should wipe them off the map.

>> ahmadinejad never said that? >> never said that. it, you would see the deputy prime minister of israel. this is online. you can find it. it was misinterpretation. said israel should be wiped off the map. it was a misinterpretation recognized by officials. and the holocaust. the foreign minister congratulated jews for the new year. >> what about the rabid dog rhetoric? >> my point, bob, is this.

rhetoricnot had any from the new administration. >> the good news is that ahmadinejad is not around anymore. [talking over each other] >> if an administration questions the holocaust or this administration condemns the holocaust, the netanyahu opposition is the same. it doesn't make a difference -- >> can the president say clearly that israel has the right to exist? >> the problem is not with iran. we have 57 muslim countries. many of them do not recognize israel. [indiscernible]

all of your allies, a majority of your allies do not recognize israel. israel's problem is not with iran. the peace process is with netanyahu. everybody knows who has blocked a solution. this is not iran. netanyahu.t [applause] >> gentlemen, this was fascinating. i think you gave a lot of insight into the deal withhat could come next some moderate reasons for hope. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> on the next washington journal, oklahoma senator tom coburn talks about federal spending and why he thinks it is too high. then brandon arnold at the national taxpayers union and eric tudor of the brookings tax policy center look at tax reform and congress passing the federal budget agreement. and how federal employees do their jobs in the workplace. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. a donor to martha's table like so many of your viewers. i would do the annual consideration of the .hings that we care about

things that match our broader believes and doing good work every day. martha's table delivered hot meals to the little park outside the bill and melinda gates foundation dc offices. then and i see that would see the lines of people there every night. that there were 10,000 volunteers, and that they had enormous influence. it was a great brand. why wouldn't i join that organization? betteri can understand why we have this issue. people going to college and being able to attach to careers

the way i was able to. theatty stonecipher on project on c-span's q&a. thenine republicans joined democrats in voting for the legislation. also, today, the white house released a report on the recommendations for changes to the nsa program. the panel calls for 46 recommendations, including ending the collection of telephone data and expanding oversight. outgoing federal reserve chair